Quote:
Originally Posted by MrX
No, I understand what you're doing, but your method for calculating the expected runs just doesn't work. Take another example. Team A is an offensive juggernaut that scores 8 runs/game. Team B has average pitching of 4.5 runs/game.
Since team A scores 8 runs/game versus average opponents and team B has average pitching, the expected runs for the matchup should be 8 runs. Your method will predict 6.25. That's a big difference.
Carry on, then, but three days will tell you nothing meaningful.
|
In this example, realize what you just said: my system will predict Team A to score 6.25 runs. That is almost two full runs more than Team B gives up --on average-- per game, as it should: Team A is an offensive juggernaut. I'm not saying that you don't have a valid point to your argument, but your argument is based on mathematical principles that are only relevant in a model of 100,000 or so wagers, not in a season of only 150 or so games that I will play.
So this where you say: "then why even bother doing this if you know it's flawed and is not based on statistical relevance"?
All of baseball betting is flawed and filled with human dimensions. However, I "instinctually" feel that this system will tend toward the means I have discussed, even if these means are not arrived at using sound statistical laws. If that sounds ridiculous, then it is because I am a gambler and not a statistician.
Either way, whether my early faith in this "system" is flawed or not, it gave me the confidence (misguided confidence no doubt) to bet a parlay that is about to cash.
